Reading and Writing Instruction for Fourth- and Fifth-Grade Classrooms in a PLC at Work® by Solution Tree

—Silvia Miranda Fourth-Grade Teacher and 2018 Milken Educator Award Winner; Mesa Elementary, Clovis, New Mexico

“I constantly research processes for the teams I support to facilitate collaboration when unpacking and understanding learning standards and utilizing data to drive instruction. This book encapsulates the essence of effective teaching and the benefits of true collaboration to maximize student literacy and achievement.” —Lindi Clancy Curriculum Instructor, Barrett Elementary, Birmingham, Alabama

With Reading and Writing Instruction for Fourth- and Fifth-Grade Classrooms in a PLC at Work®, fourth- and fifth-grade teachers will equip their students with the foundational literacy skills they will need throughout their lives. Part of the Every Teacher Is a Literacy Teacher series, this book emphasizes the importance that the Professional Learning Community (PLC) at Work process has in supporting learners who struggle with literacy and in enriching learning for those who demonstrate mastery. Series editors Mark Onuscheck and Jeanne Spiller and author Kathy Tuchman Glass provide tools and guidance to help readers design standards-aligned curriculum, assessments, and instruction. With the provided tools and guidance, readers will collaborate with their teams to explore every unit of instruction, develop detailed learning progressions, and determine the most effective teaching strategies and assessments to enhance literacy learning for every student.

FOURTH- & FIFTH-GRADE CLASSROOMS

“This is a comprehensive guide to help collaborative fourth- and fifth-grade teams successfully implement reading and writing instruction. It also includes a deep look at equity in our schools and how to bridge the gap through effective, literacy-focused collaboration. Truly a must-read book every teacher should have!”

Readers will: u Use common assessments and rubrics to collect data about student learning for collaborative inquiry and analysis

u Identify, unwrap, and prioritize learning standards using the sixstep pre-unit protocol (PREP)

u Examine research-backed teaching strategies, like gradual release of responsibility, to differentiate and improve classroom instruction

u Develop learning progressions and build team calendars to plan literacy-focused instruction and assessment

Visit go.SolutionTree.com/literacy to download the free reproducibles in this book.

SolutionTree.com ISBN 978-1-947604-93-3 90000

9 781947 604933

MARK ONUSCHECK JEANNE SPILLER

u Understand the role the three big ideas and four critical questions of a PLC play in collaborating around reading and writing instruction

Copyright © 2020 by Solution Tree Press Materials appearing here are copyrighted. With one exception, all rights are reserved. Readers may reproduce only those pages marked “Reproducible.” Otherwise, no part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without prior written permission of the publisher. 555 North Morton Street Bloomington, IN 47404 800.733.6786 (toll free) / 812.336.7700 FAX: 812.336.7790 email: info@SolutionTree.com SolutionTree.com Visit go.SolutionTree.com/literacy to download the free reproducibles in this book. Printed in the United States of America

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Glass, Kathy Tuchman, author. Title: Reading and writing instruction for fourth- and fifth-grade classrooms in a PLC at work / Kathy Tuchman Glass. Description: Bloomington, IN : Solution Tree Press, 2020. | Series: Every teacher is a literacy teacher | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020003874 (print) | LCCN 2020003875 (ebook) | ISBN 9781947604933 (paperback) | ISBN 9781947604940 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Language arts (Elementary) | Reading (Elementary) | Composition (Language arts)--Study and teaching (Elementary) | Professional learning communities. Classification: LCC LB1576 .G47493 2020 (print) | LCC LB1576 (ebook) | DDC 372.6--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020003874 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020003875 Solution Tree Jeffrey C. Jones, CEO Edmund M. Ackerman, President Solution Tree Press President and Publisher: Douglas M. Rife Associate Publisher: Sarah Payne-Mills Art Director: Rian Anderson Managing Production Editor: Kendra Slayton Senior Production Editor: Todd Brakke Content Development Specialist: Amy Rubenstein Copy Editor: Jessi Finn Text and Cover Designer: Abigail Bowen Editorial Assistants: Sarah Ludwig and Elijah Oates

TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S Reproducible pages are in italics.

About the Series Editors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix About the Author. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi INTRODUCTION

Every Teacher Is a Literacy Teacher. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 What High-Quality Instruction Looks Like in Grades 4â&#x20AC;&#x201C;5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 The Value of the PLC Process in Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 About This Series. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 About This Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 CHAPTER 1

Establish Clarity About Student Learning Expectations. . . . 9 Pre-Unit Protocol Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 CHAPTER 2

Examine Assessment Options for Literacy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Assessment Types and Formats. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 The Journey of Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Literacy Assessment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 CHAPTER 3

Create a Learning Progression to Guide Instruction and Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 A Template for Designing Learning Progressions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Suggested Learning Progression Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

READING AND WRITING INSTRUCTION FOR F O U R T H - & F I F T H - G R A D E C L A S S R O O M S I N A P L C AT W O R K

Learning Progression Timelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 CHAPTER 4

Develop Collective Understanding of Learning Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Rubrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Student Checklists. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Collaborative Scoring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 CHAPTER 5

Respond to Student Data to Ensure All Students Learn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 The Data-Inquiry Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Students Who Need Extension. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Students Who Need Additional Time and Support. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 CHAPTER 6

Design Lessons Using the Gradual Release of Responsibility Instructional Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Gradual Release of Responsibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 An Example of Using Gradual Release of Responsibilityâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; Dialogue Tag Verbs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 CHAPTER 7

Plan High-Quality Literacy Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Literacy Instruction in a PLC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 Reading Instruction Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 Close Reading of Complex Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 Writing Instruction Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 Feedback. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 Mentor Texts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

Table of Contents

Spelling Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Vocabulary Instruction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 CHAPTER 8

Select Appropriate Instructional Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 Annotation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 Graphic Organizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 Concept Attainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 CHAPTER 9

Consider Equity in Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 Access to Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 Promote High Expectations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 Offer Culturally Rich Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230

Epilogue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 APPENDIX A

Templates and Tools. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 PREP Template. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 Learning Progression and Assessments Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 Text Complexity: Qualitative Measures Rubric—Informational Texts. . . . . . . . . 239 Text Complexity: Qualitative Measures Rubric—Literature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 APPENDIX B

Process for Prioritizing Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 Teams Review the Task and Criteria for Determining Priority Standards. . . . 244 Individuals Review Standards and Critique Them Against Criteria . . . . . . . . 244 Individuals Share and the Team Arrives at an Initial List of Priority Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 Teams Consider Vertical Alignment and Expectations of External Exams and Finalize Priority Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245

vii

viii

READING AND WRITING INSTRUCTION FOR F O U R T H - & F I F T H - G R A D E C L A S S R O O M S I N A P L C AT W O R K

APPENDIX C

Depth of Knowledge Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 APPENDIX D

Essential Understandings and Guiding Questions. . . . . . . 253 Craft Essential Understandings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 Develop Guiding Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 APPENDIX E

List of Figures and Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 References and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277

ABOUT THE SERIES EDITORS

Mark Onuscheck is director of curriculum, instruction, and assessment at Adlai E. Stevenson High School in Lincolnshire, Illinois. He is a former English teacher and director of communication arts. As director of curriculum, instruction, and assessment, Mark works with academic divisions around professional learning, articulation, curricular and instructional revision, evaluation, assessment, social-emotional learning, technologies, and Common Core implementation. He is also an adjunct professor at DePaul University. Mark was awarded the Quality Matters Star Rating for his work in online teaching. He helps to build curriculum and instructional practices for TimeLine Theatre’s arts integration program for Chicago Public Schools. Additionally, he is a National Endowment for the Humanities grant recipient and a member of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, the National Council of Teachers of English, the International Literacy Association, and Learning Forward. Mark earned a bachelor’s degree in English and classical studies from Allegheny College and a master’s degree in teaching English from the University of Pittsburgh. Jeanne Spiller is assistant superintendent for teaching and learning for Kildeer Countryside Community Consolidated School District 96 in Buffalo Grove, Illinois. School District 96 is recognized on AllThingsPLC (www.AllThingsPLC.info) as one of only a small number of school districts where all schools in the district earn the distinction of model professional learning community (PLC). Jeanne’s work focuses on standards-aligned instruction and assessment practices. She supports schools and districts across the United States to gain clarity about

READING AND WRITING INSTRUCTION FOR F O U R T H - & F I F T H - G R A D E C L A S S R O O M S I N A P L C AT W O R K

and implement the four critical questions of PLCs. She is passionate about collaborating with schools to develop systems for teaching and learning that keep the focus on student results and helping teachers determine how to approach instruction so that all students learn at high levels. Jeanne received a 2014 Illinois Those Who Excel Award for significant contributions to the state’s public and nonpublic elementary schools in administration. She is a graduate of the 2008 Learning Forward Academy, where she learned how to plan and implement professional learning that improves educator practice and increases student achievement. She has served as a classroom teacher, team leader, middle school administrator, and director of professional learning. Jeanne earned a master’s degree in educational teaching and leadership from Saint Xavier University, a master’s degree in educational administration from Loyola University Chicago, and an educational administrative superintendent endorsement from Northern Illinois University. To learn more about Jeanne’s work, follow @jeeneemarie on Twitter. To book Mark Onuscheck or Jeanne Spiller for professional development, contact pd@SolutionTree.com.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Kathy Tuchman Glass strives to empower teachers to maximize student potential. She is a consultant, trainer, and former classroom teacher with more than twentyfive years of experience in education. Additionally, she is an accomplished author of many books, including The New Art and Science of Teaching Writing, coauthored with Robert J. Marzano, and the (Re)designing Writing Units series. Recognized for her expertise in myriad areas concerning curriculum and instruction, Kathy provides dynamic and interactive professional learning to K–12 educators. Her topics include differentiated instruction, standards work around English language arts, literacy, instructional strategies, assessments, and backward planning for unit and lesson design. She is a member of the International Literacy Association, the National Council of Teachers of English, the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, and Learning Forward. Kathy has a bachelor’s degree from Indiana University Bloomington and a master’s degree in education from San Francisco State University. To learn more about Kathy’s work, visit Glass Educational Consulting (https:// kathyglassconsulting.com). To book Kathy Tuchman Glass for professional development, contact pd@SolutionTree.com.

IN TRO DUCTI O N

Every Teacher Is a Literacy Teacher The words literacy and learning possess an inseparable connection. In infancy, we learn to produce our first sounds; as toddlers, we sprawl paint across a page to communicate an idea; in elementary school, we learn the power of comprehension to unveil the essence of an authorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s words; in middle and high school, we learn to evaluate sources with a keen eye and construct arguments to defend our claims; and as adults, we strive to better our abilities to read widely, write clearly, and communicate articulately. In truth, the multiple facets of literacy surround all of us every day of our lives. Therefore, a literacy level that guarantees students will fully function and engage in society must be the reality for every student because, undeniably, illiteracy is not an option for any student. As educators, we recognize this reality and cannot afford to allow students to leave our care without guaranteeing they can read, write, and communicate as they move across grade levels. The expectations for students in fourth and fifth grade increase in intensity from their earlier years in school. For example, in addition to using details from a text to identify what it states explicitlyâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;a requirement in grade 3â&#x20AC;&#x201D;students in upperelementary grades must also use textual evidence to draw inferences and incorporate quotes to develop their writing. Fourth- and fifth-grade standards also dictate that students must be able not just to assert their opinions with reasons, as they did in third grade, but also support their reasoning with facts and details drawn from sources. Students at these grade levels also encounter reading challenges that make learning new knowledge difficult. For one, texts they read contain new content with previously unfamiliar topics and concepts. Because the material is novel to them, they lack the prior knowledge to make inferences and connections to grasp this information. 1

READING AND WRITING INSTRUCTION FOR F O U R T H - & F I F T H - G R A D E C L A S S R O O M S I N A P L C AT W O R K

Second, plodding through the content presents some obstacles, such as more complicated sentence constructions and unfamiliar multisyllabic words that students did not experience in lower elementary grades. Furthermore, expectations for tasks increase in difficulty from their early elementary years, when students were asked to retell or describe the main idea of a text or to make connections with the advantage of more robust and explicit prompting. In fourth and fifth grade, students graduate to more sophisticated tasks like independently describing characters and explaining how their actions fuel the plot. Given sound instruction, many students can grapple well with these increased demands; others—especially those who struggled with mastering reading before entering fourth grade—are candidates for additional literacy intervention to make the leap and progress in their learning. Teachers in grades 4 and 5 must acknowledge and address this pivotal shift in expectations through their instruction. The reality is that many students are ill equipped to meet the demands required of them in these grades. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP, 2019), 35 percent of fourthgrade students in the United States’ public and nonpublic schools scored at or above the proficient level for reading in 2019. The organization has not published new results for writing for fourth grade, but in 2002, the number was 28 percent (NAEP, 2002), and in a 2011 report on eighth-grade students, it was just 27 percent, indicating the situation has not improved (NAEP, 2011). Students are in dire need of assistance in these critical areas of literacy; without it, they will continue to struggle with complex text and writing tasks, which will impact their potential for long-term success in and out of school. Given these factors, it’s logical to ask, “What does high-quality instruction look like in grades 4 and 5?” Just as important, how can a professional learning community (PLC) help support this kind of instruction to ensure its mission that all students learn? In the rest of this introduction, we explore both these topics as well as the purpose of the Every Teacher Is a Literacy Teacher series, the structure of this book, and how this book can support grades 4–5 teacher teams in ensuring students’ success as they prepare for the leap into secondary education.

What High-Quality Instruction Looks Like in Grades 4–5 As we’ve established, in fourth and fifth grade, the complexity of materials and the amount and types of texts students read increase, and the writing tasks become more involved. Students also must be adept at content-area literacy skills so that

Introduction

Every Teacher Is a Literacy Teacher

they can comprehend subject-matter texts, such as those used in science and social studies. In this regard, teachers begin to introduce disciplinary literacy into their teaching repertoire. Disciplinary literacy is “an approach [that] emphasizes the specialized knowledge and abilities possessed by those who create, communicate, and use knowledge within each of the disciplines” (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2012, p. 7). Although research shows the woeful prevalence of illiteracy (Hernandez, 2011), teachers can make an extraordinary impact and make literacy accessible for all students by setting high expectations aligned to standards and making instructional moves that assist students to rise to the rigor of grades 4 and 5. Whether teachers inherit students who lag behind their peers in literacy, all students from fourth grade onward benefit from teachers applying effective instructional reading practices that bolster students’ skills and strategies as they work to decipher increasingly complex text across subjects and grades (Goldman, Snow, & Vaughn, 2016). When providing high-quality literacy instruction, educators should teach reading and writing together and do so with an interdisciplinary mindset. There is an interconnectedness between the two that supports literacy development in students, and it is present not just in English language arts (ELA) but in every academic content area, from how students read and understand a story problem in mathematics to how they write notes about a science lab experiment. In their report Writing to Read, Steve Graham and Michael Hebert (2010) affirm the findings of multiple research-backed resources on the interrelated benefits of reading and writing. They maintain that writing has the potential to improve students’ reading in three ways. 1. Reading and writing are both functional activities: Students combine

these skills to accomplish specific goals, such as learning new ideas from a text and describing that learning (Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000). For instance, writing about information in a science text should facilitate comprehension and learning, as it provides the reader with a means for recording, connecting, analyzing, personalizing, and manipulating key ideas from the text. 2. Reading and writing are connected: Because they draw on common

knowledge and cognitive processes (Shanahan, 2006), when students improve their writing skills, they simultaneously improve their reading skills. 3. Reading and writing are both communication activities: When writers

create text, they gain insights about what they read. This deepens their comprehension (Tierney & Shanahan, 1991).

READING AND WRITING INSTRUCTION FOR F O U R T H - & F I F T H - G R A D E C L A S S R O O M S I N A P L C AT W O R K

Although reading and writing are interconnected, the other two strands of literacy— speaking and listening—are important as well. As students engage in discussion, presentation, and performance during literacy instruction, they develop higher levels of understanding. Also intertwined with students’ acquisition of literacy skills is their connection to technology. Teachers are wise to recognize the pervasive nature of the technology that they and their students have—quite literally—at their fingertips. As members of a thriving digital world, educators must provide high-quality literacy instruction to support students in utilizing technology. In “Why Personalized Learning Requires Technology and Thinking Humans,” founder and CEO of ThinkCERCA Eileen Murphy Buckley (n.d.) writes: Let’s face it, even the most basic Google search requires productive struggle and persistence. Eventually we will send our students out into the wild, where newspapers of record, college courses, bosses and colleagues, and increasingly, health care providers, bankers, and others will not provide them with accessible texts.

Further, not only do students need to learn how to appropriately find, comprehend, and evaluate digital resources; they must also understand the power and learning that come from their interaction with the information. How are students interpreting information, critically thinking about information, sharing opinions, creating reasons, finding evidence, and deepening their level of understanding? It is the obligation of every teacher to ensure that students function at high literacy levels and learn to appropriately navigate complex digital and printed texts to prepare them for their pursuits in secondary school and beyond.

The Value of the PLC Process in Literacy As teachers, we must possess a repertoire of instructional strategies to build on the strengths and address the needs of a richly diverse classroom of students who have a range of reading, writing, speaking, and listening capabilities. The reality is that teachers rarely have all the skills, knowledge, and time necessary to meet the wide-ranging demands of literacy on their own. This complex and important process of teaching students literacy becomes more manageable and tangible as educators engage in the process together. Therefore, it truly makes a positive difference for all learners if collaborative teams effectively contribute to teachers making meaningful changes in classroom practices. When we integrate high-quality literacy instruction within the collective efforts representative of a PLC, literacy learning soars to new levels.

Introduction

Every Teacher Is a Literacy Teacher

Those familiar with PLC culture know that the foundation of a PLC’s work is built on three distinct big ideas: (1) a focus on student learning, (2) a collaborative culture and collective responsibility, and (3) a results orientation (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, Many, & Mattos, 2016). Four critical questions guide educators as they collaborate to provide quality instruction for all learners (DuFour et al., 2016). 1. What is it we want our students to learn? 2. How will we know if each student has learned it? 3. How will we respond when some students don’t learn it? 4. How can we extend and enrich the learning for students who have

demonstrated proficiency? The About This Book section (page 7) explains how the chapters and team action steps in this book align with these critical questions. Within a PLC, teachers are organized into collaborative teams that “work interdependently to achieve common goals for which members are mutually accountable” (DuFour et al., 2016, p. 12). Together, they come to a clear understanding of the essential literacy skills that all students should know and be able to do, and they design assessments that align with the learning outcomes. They collaborate around sound instructional practices, sharing strategies that proved successful, and work as a team to develop differentiated lessons along the way. Further, they openly discuss and analyze student data as a way to make informed instructional decisions to move students’ learning forward. This book provides resources and tools to accomplish these critical tasks so teams can operate effectively and maximize their collective strengths in the service of students. Through these collective efforts, teachers establish a guaranteed and viable curriculum that ensures equal opportunities to learn. Thus, students are guaranteed access to the same content, knowledge, and skills, regardless of their teacher (Marzano, 2003). Put plainly, teachers within a PLC work together to ensure that every student, in every classroom, receives what he or she needs to master essential skills and pave the way for a promising future. With collaboration as one of the three big ideas of a PLC, a concerted effort is no doubt essential. But what happens when you are the sole literacy teacher at your grade level? We often refer to these teachers as singletons—the one fourth- or fifth-grade teacher in an elementary school, for example. In these situations, it is important to collaborate with other professionals who can help support and guide you through the work of the PLC process. In many cases, a teacher from the

READING AND WRITING INSTRUCTION FOR F O U R T H - & F I F T H - G R A D E C L A S S R O O M S I N A P L C AT W O R K

preceding or following grade level can become a great working partner, as he or she has a wealth of knowledge about the skills students have acquired or will need to acquire for the next school year. Grade-level partners who teach other content areas can also be helpful as you work collaboratively to provide a guaranteed and viable curriculum for every student in every classroom across the school. Finally, take advantage of an online, interconnected world and reach out to grade-level teachers in other districts. Use technology to collaborate as you do the work of ensuring a consistent and viable literacy-focused curriculum. As noted earlier in this section, when teachers collaborate to teach students literacy skills, the learning process becomes more manageable and tangible.

About This Series This book is part of the Every Teacher Is a Literacy Teacher series, which provides guidance on literacy-focused instruction and classroom strategies for grades preK–12. The elementary segment of this series includes separate titles focused on instruction in grades preK–1, grades 2–3, and grades 4–5. While each of these books follows a similar approach and structure, the content and examples these books include address the discrete demands of each grade-level band. All the chapters are dedicated to the steps collaborative teams must take before engaging in instruction to ensure clarity about standards, assessment, learning progressions, mastery expectations, interventions, gradual release of responsibility, use of instructional time, instructional strategies, and diversity and equity. Each chapter also includes specific collaborative team exercises, paving the way for teams to engage in the work that the chapter describes. The various secondary school books in this series each feature classroom literacy strategies for a subject area in grades 6–12, such as science or ELA. The expert educators writing these secondary-level books approach literacy in varying and innovative ways and examine the role every teacher must play in supporting students’ literacy development in all subject areas throughout their grades 6–12 schooling. Woven throughout each book is the idea that collaboration plays a crucial role in the success of any school dedicated to building effective teams in a PLC culture. When experts collaborate, innovative ideas emerge in ways that support student learning and generate positive results. Further, schools that invest in a PLC culture work in more unified and cohesive ways, prioritizing concerns and working

Introduction

Every Teacher Is a Literacy Teacher

together to innovate positive changes. In this series, we are excited to share ways a PLC can function to radiate change when thoughtful educators dedicate themselves to supporting the literacy development of all students.

About This Book We constructed this book to assist schools, and, more specifically, collaborative teams within a school, to design standards-aligned instruction, assessment, and intervention that support the literacy development of all students. We’ve focused it through the lens of PLC culture, with each of the first five chapters centered on how collaborative teams may begin to answer one or more of the four critical questions that drive the first big idea—a focus on learning (DuFour et al., 2016). Chapter 1 addresses what collaborative teams want students to learn by introducing the pre-unit protocol (PREP). This protocol assists teams in gaining clarity about student learning expectations before beginning a unit of instruction. Chapters 2–4 address how teams can know what learning has taken place. Chapter 2 reviews the myriad assessment types, including how teams ensure a literacy focus. It features an example unit assessment continuum and ways teachers may use each type of assessment within a unit of instruction. Chapter 3 offers a process for creating an instructional learning progression for each learning standard a team identified using PREP. The learning progression assists teams in the development of learning target–aligned assessments and high-quality instruction. Chapter 4 considers student proficiency, the various rubric types, rubric development, student checklists, and collaborative scoring. Chapter 5 addresses how teams use data and determine next steps to support students who haven’t achieved mastery or to extend learning for those who have. The chapter focuses on the data-inquiry process, scaffolded instruction, and extension opportunities. In chapters 6–9, we address instructional processes connected to literacy. Topics include using the gradual release of responsibility model (chapter 6), planning high-quality literacy instruction within the literacy block (chapter 7), selecting appropriate instructional strategies to facilitate high-quality literacy instruction (chapter 8), and considering diversity and equity in literacy instruction (chapter 9). We also include an array of useful resources in this book’s appendices. Appendix A consists of a variety of reproducible versions of tools from the book, including the PREP template. Appendix B expands on chapter 1’s content related to priority

READING AND WRITING INSTRUCTION FOR F O U R T H - & F I F T H - G R A D E C L A S S R O O M S I N A P L C AT W O R K

standards by providing an effective process that teams can use to determine them. Appendix C offers extended details on Norman Webbâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (1997, 1999) Depth of Knowledge (DOK) levels, which we introduce in chapter 1. Appendix D includes extra information about developing essential understandings and guiding questions when filling out the PREP template. Appendix E provides a list of the figures featured throughout the book. Finally, we have assembled a bonus online appendix at go.SolutionTree.com/literacy that collects the different team exercises we include throughout the book. The place to begin is gaining clarity as a team about what your students should know and be able to do. This is why, in chapter 1, we provide teacher teams with tools to arrive at a collective understanding of the literacy standards and the specific learning outcomes necessary for proficiency in grades 4 and 5. We provide a process to help your team examine and unwrap (also called unpack) the standards, and we share strategies for focusing conversations as you dig into the often complicated and ambiguous wording of your literacy standards. The critical work you do in chapter 1 will set the foundation for establishing a rich and robust plan for quality literacy instruction and assessment.

C H A PTER

Establish Clarity About Student Learning Expectations The PLC process asserts that each student is entitled to a guaranteed and viable curriculum (DuFour et al., 2016; Marzano, 2003). Guaranteed expressly stipulates that schools grant all students the opportunity to learn a core curriculum to position them for success. To deliver this guaranteed curriculum, schools must ensure the curriculum is viable, meaning that schools ensure the necessary time is available as well as protected. With a deficit in students who excel in literacy, and by virtue of literacy contributing to lifelong success, there is a strong case for safeguarding essential literacy skills as guaranteed and viable. The first question that drives the work of a PLC aligns with this promise by asking, What is it we want our students to learn? (DuFour et al., 2016). Put another way, What do we want students to know and be able to do? With regard to teaching literacy, this pivotal question means, for example, that before introducing a complex text, launching into a writing activity, or conducting an assessment, teacher teams must interpret language arts standards in the same way and use them to guide a robust and rigorous instruction and assessment plan. If teachers do not work together to analyze literacy standards and reach consensus on what each one means across the strands, they will not afford students access to the same content, knowledge, and skills. In essence, any lack of clarity we have as educators interferes with studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; access to a guaranteed and viable curriculum. Answering this first critical question requires careful consideration of the following components that work together to guide any effective instruction and assessment plan; in this text, we apply them to support studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; literacy advancement.

READING AND WRITING INSTRUCTION FOR F O U R T H - & F I F T H - G R A D E C L A S S R O O M S I N A P L C AT W O R K

Standards Knowledge Skills Depth of knowledge

To address these key components, teams of teachers must collaborate to become completely clear about the specific knowledge and skills that all students must know and be able to do by the end of a particular unit. To support this endeavor, we propose teams follow a pre-unit protocol (PREP) that they begin at least a week or more prior to instruction for a unit. In this chapter, we detail Kathy’s work to apply the PREP process with a fourthgrade team in Kildeer Countryside Community Consolidated School District 96, a K–8 district in Buffalo Grove, Illinois. We first provide an overview of the six steps in the PREP process and then continue with a deep explanation of each step.

Pre-Unit Protocol Steps By following the six PREP steps, teams can focus on the most important standards present in a unit of instruction, particularly those tied to literacy, and unwrap them such that each team member has a collective sense of the critical knowledge and skills that make up a standard. 1. Enter unit standards onto the PREP template. 2. Indicate (or determine) priority standards. 3. Unwrap unit priority standards. 4. Identify knowledge items. 5. Determine skills. 6. Assign levels of rigor for learning targets.

When applying this process, teams can use the explanations and examples articulated in this chapter as tools to learn the significance of each component. Teams inclined to extend this process beyond the six steps can also build essential understandings and guiding questions. Essential understandings crystallize and articulate conceptual thinking for teachers to guide curriculum design more deeply, and guiding questions set the purpose for students’ learning. For thorough definitions

Learning targets

Chapter 1

Establish Clarity About Student Learning Expectations

and rationales of these latter two components and information on where they reside within curriculum design, read appendix D (page 253).

Figure 1.1 (page 13) features a completed PREP template for a two-week dialogue unit to reflect the outcome of this process. Although this sample template shows fourth-grade ELA content standards, with some adjustments, it can apply to a fifth-grade unit, as well. We have used the Common Core State Standards for English language arts in this sample; however, when teams complete the process, they can access national, state, provincial, or school standards that they are obligated to implement. (For a blank reproducible version of this figure for your team to use, see page 234.) To clarify our use of this dialogue unit example, teachers conduct other units related to narrative so that fourth- or fifth-grade students examine the elements of literature (such as plot, character, setting, point of view, and theme) as well as narrative techniques (for example, foreshadowing, characterization, dialect, or suspense). Within these units, students read appropriately challenging fiction and nonfiction narrative complex texts at the center of instruction. They respond to teacher- and student-generated text-dependent questions and participate in myriad activities and assessments around these selected works. Teachers also guide students through the writing process as they prewrite, draft, revise, and edit to produce (publish) a polished story, which represents the culminating assessment. Dialogue, which is the focus for this PREP process sample, is a technique that meaningfully serves various purposes within a narrative. For example, it can help to develop the plot; reveal characters’ thoughts, beliefs, and actions; and serve as an opportunity for making inferences. In The New Art and Science of Teaching, Robert Marzano (2017) emphasizes that teachers need to chunk content when teaching new information. Breaking hefty content into digestible pieces helps students learn since they “can hold only small amounts of information in their working memories” (p. 30). Aside from the effectiveness of this approach for all learners, students in grades 4–5 might especially need each facet of a unit broken down since the increased demands from primary

Because mandated district, state, provincial, and national content-area standards can be complex and often lead to various interpretations among educators, adhering to this process protects student learning by establishing distinct expectations for learners across all grade-level classrooms. Participating in this protocol also sets the groundwork for subsequent collaborative efforts—building common assessments, critiquing the efficacy of existing units, and designing new lessons that guide students toward mastery of each learning standard.

• Choose words and phrases to convey ideas precisely. (L.4.3a)

• Use commas and quotation marks to mark direct speech and quotations from a text. (L.4.2b)

• Use correct capitalization. (L.4.2a)

Strand: Language

• With some guidance and support from adults, use technology, including the Internet, to produce and publish writing as well as to interact and collaborate with others; demonstrate sufficient command of keyboarding skills to type a minimum of one page in a single sitting. (W.4.6)

• With guidance and support from peers and adults, develop and strengthen writing as needed by planning, revising, and editing. (W.4.5)

• Produce clear and coherent writing in which the development and organization are appropriate to task, purpose, and audience. (W.4.4)

• Provide a conclusion that follows from the narrated experiences or events. (W.4.3e)

• Use concrete words and phrases and sensory details to convey experiences and events precisely. (W.4.3d)

• Use a variety of transitional words and phrases to manage the sequence of events. (W.4.3c)

• Use dialogue and description to develop experiences and events or show the responses of characters to situations. (W.4.3b)

• Orient the reader by establishing a situation and introducing a narrator and/or characters; organize an event sequence that unfolds naturally. (W.4.3a)

• Write narratives to develop real or imagined experiences or events using effective technique, descriptive details, and clear event sequences. (W.4.3)

Strand: Writing

• Compare and contrast the point of view from which different stories are narrated, including the difference between first- and thirdperson narrations. (RL.4.6)

• Describe in depth a character, setting, or event in a story or drama, drawing on specific details in the text (e.g., a character’s thoughts, words, or actions). (RL.4.3)

• Refer to details and examples in a text when explaining what the text says explicitly and when drawing inferences from the text. (RL.4.1)

Strand: Reading for Literature

Unit Standards (Priority standards are in bold and italic typeface.)

Unit 2: The Power of Dialogue Within a Narrative | Time Frame: Approximately two weeks in October | Grade: 4

READING AND WRITING INSTRUCTION FOR

F O U R T H - & F I F T H - G R A D E C L A S S R O O M S I N A P L C AT W O R K

Term: Dialogue tag (speaker tag)

Dialogue tag verbs provide description to indicate how characters speak to one another.

Use words and phrases to convey ideas in a dialogue tag. (DOK 1)

Use proper conventions when writing dialogue. (DOK 1)

Write descriptive detail to develop a plot or show characters’ responses to situations. (DOK 2)

Write dialogue to develop a plot or to show characters’ responses to situations. (DOK 2)

Make inferences using details and examples in a text. (DOK 2)

Identify details and examples in a text to explain what it says explicitly. (DOK 1)

Skills (Learning Targets and DOK Levels)

Figure 1.1: Pre-unit protocol example for grade 4—Dialogue.

Chapter 1

Source for standards: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA) & Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), 2010.

L.4.3a: Choose words and phrases to convey ideas precisely.

Types of dialogue (or speaker) tags— beginning, middle, end, or no tag

Punctuation and capitalization rules for the different types of dialogue or speaker tags

L.4.2a: Use correct capitalization.

L.4.2b: Use commas and quotation marks to mark direct speech and quotations from a text.

Descriptive details—precise nouns, vivid verbs, and colorful adjectives

Dialogue is meaningful and serves a function—to develop the plot or to show characters’ responses to situations.

Purpose and function of dialogue

Terms: Imply, infer, inference

Inferences—implied information that is not directly or explicitly stated

Terms: Literal, explicit

Literal and explicit details from a text are directly stated.

Knowledge Items

W.4.3b (B): Use description to develop experiences and events or show the responses of characters to situations.

W.4.3b (A): Use dialogue to develop experiences and events or show the responses of characters to situations.

RL.4.1 (B): Refer to details and examples in a text when drawing inferences from the text.

RL.4.1 (A): Refer to details and examples in a text when explaining what the text says explicitly.

Unwrapped Unit Priority Standards

• Explain the meaning of simple similes and metaphors (e.g., as pretty as a picture) in context. (L.4.5a)

• Use context (e.g., definitions, examples, or restatements in text) as a clue to the meaning of a word or phrase. (L.4.4a)

Establish Clarity About Student Learning Expectations

READING AND WRITING INSTRUCTION FOR F O U R T H - & F I F T H - G R A D E C L A S S R O O M S I N A P L C AT W O R K

In the following sections, we break down the PREP protocol and explain how the use of each of the six progressive steps helps teams organize and simplify the PREP process and unlock the literacy learning inherent in any curriculum.

Enter Unit Standards Onto the PREP Template At the start of the process, an essential part of a team’s discussions centers on the targeted standards for a unit of study. A unit is a subdivision of instruction within a subject matter and, in grades 4–5, might be interdisciplinary; it entails a series of standards-based interconnected lessons that share a common focus. For example, in ELA, teachers might conduct an opinion unit. Within it, students read various works by an author (for example, Patricia Polacco or Chris Van Allsburg), select their favorite, and write an essay asserting their opinion using textual evidence as support. In social studies, a representative topic for a unit might be Native American cultures or a theme such as community workers or conflict and cooperation. In an interdisciplinary unit, students can study the causes and effects of the American Revolution (social studies); conduct research and write an informational report about their findings (ELA); and design various graphs (such as pie or bar graphs) based on the number of soldiers on both sides of the war who died, lived, sustained injuries, and were captured (mathematics). Unit lengths vary from a mini-unit that can span a few days or a week to a comprehensive unit of perhaps eight weeks. Although teacher teams conduct various formative assessments all throughout a unit to determine students’ learning, the unit culminates in a summative assessment that measures students’ comprehensive understanding of all standards within the unit. (For further information, see the discussion about assessments in chapter 2, page 37.) As specified in figure 1.1, our fourth-grade team anticipated the dialogue unit lasting about two weeks. To begin the first step, teams identify every standard they will address throughout a unit of instruction. Teams can determine the exact compilation of standards that compose a literacy unit of instruction by accessing teaching resources, like a literature textbook or packaged curriculum, referring to a curriculum-mapping or curriculum-pacing document, or designing their own unit. If the district or school

grades are steep. Consider how a team might apply this thinking to the dialogue example in figure 1.1 (page 13). During lessons around this key component, students examine the purpose and function of dialogue and write conversations between characters; they study the writing conventions involved when inserting dialogue into their stories; and they consider alternatives to said as a dialogue tag. Students then assimilate these related chunks to incorporate authentic and correctly treated dialogue in stories that they create.

Chapter 1

Establish Clarity About Student Learning Expectations

has purchased a reading or writing program or textbook from a publisher, the content standards are typically indicated within the resource, which is organized by units or modules. When using a purchased program, teams should still review the standards to ensure which ones and how many are appropriate. Keep in mind that publishers often list more standards than teachers might address in any given unit.

Once teams identify and agree on all the standards for the unit of instruction, teachers enter them in the Unit Standards section of the PREP template. This same process applies for teams addressing literacy standards in subject areas other than ELA. After all, students read complex text to acquire content across disciplines and should write to demonstrate understanding of information. For example, those who teach science or social studies can identify one or more of these four literacy-focused strands—(1) Reading, (2) Writing, (3) Speaking and Listening, and (4) Language— as crucial aspects of learning about ecosystems, natural disasters, exploration, or causes of a war. It can seem overwhelming to consider teaching all the standards in a limited time due to their sheer number. Therefore, teams may feel compelled to prioritize the standards, choosing only those that are absolutely essential for students to learn. (Note the bold-italic text in the first section of figure 1.1, page 13, which signifies the prioritized standards.) Step 2 of this process will address these concerns. For now, teams enter all standards pertaining to a specific unit so they have a clear and comprehensive picture of the overall expected learning outcomes.

E X E RC I S E

Enter Unit Standards Onto the PREP Template To prepare for the six-step process, use a blank PREP template (page 234 and downloadable from go.SolutionTree.com/literacy) to input

In another scenario, some schools and districts have designed curriculum maps that outline the standards for a unit or cycle of instruction. If this is the case, teams use these standards. Or, teacher teams sometimes tap their collective professional expertise to design their own units of instruction and determine pertinent standards for the targeted unit. Whichever approach teams take—sometimes blending use of published resources, curriculum maps, and teacher-developed materials— identifying standards represents their initial step so that clarity about what students need to know and do to be proficient by unit’s end guides the entire process.

READING AND WRITING INSTRUCTION FOR F O U R T H - & F I F T H - G R A D E C L A S S R O O M S I N A P L C AT W O R K

the entire set of standards for your targeted unit. As your team reads about each step throughout this chapter, you may stop to participate in the provided exercises and return to this template to record more information. Alternatively, your team can read the entire chapter and where you do not have a collaborative team in your building or district (you are a singleton teacher), consider whom you might reach out to as a collaborative partner for this exercise. Use the following questions to guide this exercise.

Ì What unit of instruction will our team work on together to practice the PREP process? When will we teach this unit?

Ì How can we work as a collaborative team to identify standards for this first step in the PREP process?

Ì What plan can we put in place to address logistical decisions, such as the following: When and where will we meet? Who will facilitate the meeting? Who will access the template and perhaps convert it to a Google Doc to share with others? Who will enter the information onto the template?

Indicate (or Determine) Priority Standards So much to teach and not enough time. This seems to be a universal concern for teachers across all grade levels. With dozens of standards to address, a multitude of essential skills for students to learn, a sea of rich texts to introduce, and an array of lessons to deliver, one question lingers in the minds of educators everywhere: How do I fit it all in? Once teams enter all unit standards onto the PREP template, the critical next step involves indicating which of these standards qualify as priority standards—that is, the standards that are most vital for students to learn (DuFour et al., 2016). Note that some refer to priority standards as power standards or essential standards (Crawford, 2011); these are all interchangeable terms. Priority standards then become the basis for instruction, assessment, and intervention. If your team has already identified grade-level priority standards for a unit of instruction, simply identify them on the PREP template by marking them in a way that sets them

then work on all exercises in a fluid fashion. If you are in a situation

Chapter 1

Establish Clarity About Student Learning Expectations

apart from nonpriority standards, such as through highlighting, bolding, underlining, or using a unique color.

To perform this task effectively, team members carefully look at each learning standard, combing through the precise language and identifying those standards that most significantly impact students’ learning. As a team, they likely agree that all standards within a unit have value and should be taught; however, the priority standards become the primary focus for instruction. Teachers hold students accountable for learning priority standards as they emphasize them during instruction, design formal assessments around them, and plan interventions to ensure opportunities for all students to reach the expected outcomes. As DuFour et al. (2016) explain: The process of prioritizing the standards . . . creates greater clarity about what teachers will teach, which in turn, promotes more efficient planning and sharing of resources. Perhaps the greatest benefit . . . is that it encourages teachers to embrace more in-depth instruction by reducing the pressure to simply cover the material. (p. 117)

Collaborative teams within a PLC adopt a collective understanding of the priority standards most essential for students to master. However, with so many complex standards in a unit, how do teachers determine which standards to prioritize? Also, since ELA standards encompass a multitude of expectations within the strands of Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening, and Language, how will teams identify literacy-critical aspects of these standards? To make this important decision, teams consider three key factors: (1) endurance, (2) leverage, and (3) readiness (Ainsworth & Viegut, 2015; Bailey, Jakicic, & Spiller, 2014; Reeves, 2002). Additionally, they take into account the knowledge necessary for high-stakes exams. Note, though, that a standard does not necessarily need to meet all these criteria to be deemed

For those unfamiliar with prioritizing standards, this step addresses the real concern of how to fit it all in. Even most veteran teachers would confess that they would be hard-pressed to address every standard and its embedded concepts and skills with ease. They feel challenged to implement the standards with the fidelity and detailed attention required to make a significant impact on students’ learning. More than likely, teachers may feel as though they run the distance by covering a lot of ground in reading and writing lessons. However, their instruction often lacks the depth necessary to make real progress in student achievement and ensure learning for all students. For this reason, collaborative teams prioritize content-area standards by carefully selecting those that will become the emphasis for a unit of study.

READING AND WRITING INSTRUCTION FOR F O U R T H - & F I F T H - G R A D E C L A S S R O O M S I N A P L C AT W O R K

a priority. If your team has yet to establish priority standards for a unit, work together to review the following criteria that define the critical factors. (For more guidance, refer to the process for prioritizing standards in appendix B, page 243.)

Does the standard have leverage? Are the skills and knowledge in the standard applicable across several disciplines? For example, summarizing complex text might be taught in ELA when students experience a literary work, but it is equally valuable when reading content in social studies and science. If the skills embedded in a standard have value in other content areas, the standard has leverage and should become a priority. Is the standard needed for student readiness? Does the standard include prerequisite skills and knowledge necessary to prepare students for the next grade? For example, when students learn the structure and elements of an opinion paper, it equips them with the skills they need to tackle the more rigorous work of argumentation writing. Therefore, when prioritizing standards, consider the progression of skills from one grade level to the next, and choose those that build the foundation for future learning. Is the standard needed for high-stakes exams? Do students need to know and apply the skills and knowledge of the standard on external exams? For example, in district, state or provincial, college, or vocational exams, students might need to respond to questions or writing prompts geared to the standard. Teachers should consider this when discussing which standards are necessary for student preparedness. To return to the example in figure 1.1 (page 13), bold-italic typeface indicates priority standards. Our fourth-grade team identified W.4.3b as essential for this particular dialogue unit; therefore, we are using bold-italic typeface to indicate

Does the standard have endurance? Are the skills and knowledge embedded in the standard critical for students to remember beyond the course or unit in which they are taught? For example, the ability to coherently summarize complex text is a skill that extends beyond a particular unit of instruction. Teachers expect students to be able to summarize key details from their reading from upper elementary through high school; it is useful within some professional careers, too. Therefore, summarizing is an enduring skill worth teaching in grades 4â&#x20AC;&#x201C;5.

Chapter 1

Establish Clarity About Student Learning Expectations

Dialogue—a component of narrative—meets the criteria for endurance because it involves critical skills and knowledge that students need to retain in the future in subsequent grades when narrative reading and writing is an expectation. In terms of leverage, students might write narratives incorporating dialogue not only to entertain but also to inform, instruct, or persuade; therefore, these standards can achieve applicability across content areas. For example, students could write a historical fiction piece in social studies to share information and demonstrate an understanding of events and people from the past. Or, students might compose a science fiction story in which they explore and speculate about topics such as environmental issues and natural disasters to instruct others about possible dangerous consequences of human actions or inactions. As for high-stakes testing, many schools, districts, states, and provinces expect fourth- and fifth-grade students to read and, in some cases, produce narrative writing that includes dialogue as characters speak to one another for various purposes. When inserting dialogue, students must learn to use proper mechanics, so our team considered two complementary language standards, L.4.2a and L.4.2b, as essential. To craft a well-developed and organized narrative complete with dialogue, students need exposure to published complex text as well as student examples. Our fourth-grade team decided to create learning experiences around specific literary works that help students examine the use and function of dialogue and what it indicates explicitly and inferentially. In doing so, we position students to write their own narratives. These lessons address reading standard RL.4.1, which the team flagged as essential because it augments the writing skills we prioritized. A team may revisit this standard when focusing on other units related to narrative, as well, such as elements of literature, figurative language, and description. As a reminder, grades 4–5 teachers address all standards during the school year throughout the various units of instruction in which they apply. However, standards not identified as priority move to a supporting role; these standards “support,

its priority status. In related narrative-related units, we flagged other standards as essential—W.4.3a for establishing the central conflict and narrator, plus organizing a sequence of events; W.4.3c for incorporating transitional words and phrases; and so forth. Since the standard does not dictate the genre within the narrative text type, teachers can ask students to produce either narrative fiction (such as realistic fiction, mystery, or legend) or narrative nonfiction (such as biography, autobiography, memoir, or personal narrative).

READING AND WRITING INSTRUCTION FOR F O U R T H - & F I F T H - G R A D E C L A S S R O O M S I N A P L C AT W O R K

After determining priority standards for the target unit, the team then unwraps these standards to examine the specific knowledge and skills embedded within each one. This helps teams develop assessments and design instruction.

E X E RC I S E

Indicate (or Deter mine) Priority Standards Review the standards you entered onto the PREP template. If your team has already undergone a process for prioritizing them, merely distinguish priority standards from supporting standards by bolding, underlining, or color-coding them. If, however, your team has not yet prioritized standards, use the suggestions from this section along with the process articulated in appendix B to do so. Then, return to the PREP template and mark the priority standards. Use the following questions to guide this exercise.

Ì Which standards will we deem priority or essential? Ì Which priority standards are appropriate for our targeted unit of study?

connect to, or enhance the priority standards. They are taught within the context of the priority standards, but do not receive the same degree of instruction and assessment emphasis as do the priority standards” (Ainsworth, 2013, p. xv). You can learn more about this identification process in appendix B (page 243). For example, teachers surely guide students through the writing process and address this standard: “With guidance and support from peers and adults, develop and strengthen writing as needed by planning, revising, and editing” (W.4.5; NGA & CCSSO, 2010). However, they address it within the priority standard W.4.3, which focuses on producing a well-developed, logically sequenced story complete with narrative techniques. This same notion applies when teachers indicate the writing process standard as supporting in the service of the priority standards for text types—informational, explanatory, and opinion—across content areas. Reading standards, such as determining a theme, comparing and contrasting points of view, and describing characters or events drawing on details from the text, can be subsumed under the reading literature standard (RL.4.1), rendering them supporting as well.

Chapter 1

Establish Clarity About Student Learning Expectations

Ì Are all team members clear that we will be held accountable for students learning the priority standards? Are priority standards the focus for our teaching, assessment, and intervention? such, are subsumed under priority standards? Which priority standards subsume them?

Ì Are we clear that we will still address and teach supporting standards but not give them the same time and attention as priority standards?

Unwrap Unit Priority Standards A common misconception among many teacher teams is that listing unit standards sufficiently represents the basis for all instructional decisions moving forward. One might think, I’ve got a list of standards right here, so I’m ready to teach. However, this is not the case. To fully understand each standard and guarantee a consistent curriculum for grades 4–5 classrooms, teams of teachers must examine each contentarea standard and arrive at a collective agreement about its precise meaning and implications for instruction and assessment. It is the explicit and implicit skills and knowledge embedded within standards from which teams must design a robust instructional and assessment plan. So, teams participate in the process of unwrapping (what some refer to as unpacking) standards, allowing them to critically examine and parse the words of a standard. By utilizing this strategy, teams can reveal fine-grain learning targets embedded within a standard to guide quality instruction, with an emphasis on literacy, and better support students’ efforts to master that targeted standard. In Simplifying Common Assessment, Kim Bailey and Chris Jakicic (2017) write: The goal of the unwrapping process is twofold: first, to build shared or collective understanding of what the standard asks students to know and do; and second, to identify the smaller increments of learning, or learning targets, that will create a step-by-step path leading to that standard. (p. 21)

To give credence to unwrapping and to provide teachers with an authentic reason for participating in this critical step, teams talk about how they teach to a

Ì Which standards serve as supporting standards and, as

READING AND WRITING INSTRUCTION FOR F O U R T H - & F I F T H - G R A D E C L A S S R O O M S I N A P L C AT W O R K

standard and what evidence of learning they ask students to produce. For example, consider the priority standard RL.4.1—“Refer to details and examples in a text when explaining what the text says explicitly and when drawing inferences from the text” (NGA & CCSSO, 2010)—and the following scenario focusing on drawing inferences.

These two examples illustrate varying degrees of interpretation—one less rigorous in its design and expectation, the other requiring more skills and in-depth application of the standard. By unwrapping standards, teachers on a team avoid translating and teaching a standard in their own potentially highly variable ways. Rather, they ensure that team members apply a consistent approach to teaching and assessing student proficiency. To unwrap a standard, teams can annotate priority standards, as illustrated in figure 1.2. • REFER TO details and examples in a text when explaining what the text says explicitly and when drawing inferences from the text. (RL.4.1) • USE dialogue and description to DEVELOP experiences and events or SHOW the responses of characters to situations. (W.4.3b) Figure 1.2: Using annotation to unwrap priority standards.

To arrive at these annotated standards, our team answered the following three questions and annotated the standards accordingly. 1. What priority standard (or standards) are we targeting? Copy and

paste the priority standard or standards onto a blank document or print them out.

One teacher on a team provides students with a prepared passage of a complex text that includes underlined words and phrases that have an underlying meaning. In the margin, students write an inference corresponding to the textual evidence the teacher underlined. Another teacher identifies two salient dialogue passages without indicating which might hold deep meaning. Working in pairs, each partner focuses on a different passage and writes a detailed response to this prompt: How does dialogue uncover characters’ beliefs, feelings, or motivations? In your written response, include specific details and examples from the text to support your answer. Partners share their work to ensure they are drawing correct inferences and citing appropriate textual evidence. They help each other make revisions, then submit their short essays to the teacher.

Chapter 1

Establish Clarity About Student Learning Expectations

2. What will students need to do to be proficient? Find and capitalize or

circle (or both) pertinent verbs in each standard. The verbs—together with the content and context (step 3)—pinpoint the exact skills students need to achieve proficiency in a standard. 3. With what content and context will students achieve proficiency? Find

Since each standard contains several layers, teachers on a grade-level team may interpret the words differently (as illustrated in the scenario earlier in this section). If teachers misinterpret the intent of a standard, they inadvertently jeopardize a guaranteed curriculum as students across a school and district receive haphazard instruction with varying degrees of rigor. Therefore, during this portion of the PREP process, dedicate time to unwrapping priority standards and achieving collective agreement about them. Doing so requires teachers to closely examine and analyze every verb, noun, and conjunction to fully grasp the complexity and entirety of each ELA standard. This exercise provokes a serious conversation about the specific skills, knowledge, and concepts necessary for effective literacy instruction and assessment that will benefit grades 4–5 students. Once teams identify significant verbs, they convey the verbs’ importance by capitalizing and bolding them (if working electronically) or circling or highlighting them (if using hard copies). As you can see from figure 1.2 (page 22), our fourthgrade team pinpointed refer as a key verb. Next, teams must discuss the context of each verb to uncover significant nouns, noun phrases, or other phrases that indicate salient knowledge items necessary for mastery. To illustrate, our team discussed the context of the verb refer by asking, “In this standard, what do students refer to exactly?” The team parsed the sentence and determined that the standard expects students to refer to details and examples for two express purposes: (1) to explain what the text states directly (explicitly) and (2) to explain what the text says inferentially (implicitly). Once we agreed, we underlined the noun phrases shown in figure 1.2 and divided the standard in two. To differentiate between them, our team wrote the following targets as complete sentences and added capitalized letters in parentheses beside them. 1. RL.4.1 (A): Refer to details and examples in a text when explaining what

the text says explicitly. 2. RL.4.1 (B): Refer to details and examples in a text when drawing infer-

ences from the text.

and underline the nouns and phrases that represent the content and concepts to teach within each standard.

READING AND WRITING INSTRUCTION FOR F O U R T H - & F I F T H - G R A D E C L A S S R O O M S I N A P L C AT W O R K

1. W.4.3b (A): Use dialogue to develop experiences and events or show the

responses of characters to situations. 2. W.4.3b (B): Use description to develop experiences and events or show

the responses of characters to situations. As an additional consideration during the unwrapping process, teams should pay attention to these commonly used abbreviations within standards: e.g. and i.e. When a standard includes e.g., the intent is to provide a list of examples since this Latin abbreviation means “for the sake of example.” For instance, this standard gives teachers the option of selecting one or more strategies from a provided list, which isn’t finite: Choose an appropriate organization strategy (e.g., sequence of events, cause–effect, compare–contrast) to convey a message. If, however, a standard uses i.e., what follows the abbreviation becomes an expectation, as in the following: Interpret forms of figurative language used in various texts (i.e., simile, metaphor, personification). Teachers must take the time to scrutinize each standard to capture its intent and work in teams to help decipher and interpret what can sometimes be murky. In Yes We Can!, Heather Friziellie, Julie A. Schmidt, and Jeanne Spiller (2016) write: Unpacking standards enables every teacher who teaches the standard to develop a deep and consistent understanding of the standard and its component expectations. The outcome is that students will receive instruction that is truly aligned to the expected rigor and complexity of the standard. (p. 46)

After teachers annotate their standards through underlining, circling, bolding, or another method, they keep these standards readily available to use when they identify knowledge items in the following step.

Standard W.4.3b seemed a bit trickier to unwrap: “Use dialogue and description to develop experiences and events or show the responses of characters to situations” (NGA & CCSSO, 2010). First, our team located three verbs—(1) use, (2) develop, and (3) show. However, we determined that use was the operative word and the other two verbs were tightly linked to it. We marked the verbs but knew use was a top priority. Next, we underlined the noun phrases that provide context to answer the question, “What do students use?” It appears that students are to use both dialogue and description for an express purpose—to develop experiences and events. Then we discussed the conjunction or and its placement within this standard to indicate the option of students either developing experiences and events or showing the responses of characters to situations. Therefore, we interpreted the standard to mean that dialogue and description are non-negotiable, but students can choose for what purpose they use them. Once again, we divided a standard in two, adding capitalized letters to the bolded targets to distinguish the two embedded skills.

Chapter 1

Establish Clarity About Student Learning Expectations

E X E RC I S E

Unwrap Unit Priority Standards As a collaborative team, work on unwrapping or unpacking priority access your work-in-progress PREP template and the explanation for unwrapping standards in this section. Annotate standards according to the protocol steps to uncover smaller, incremental learning goals that exist within each overarching standard. Use the following questions to guide this exercise.

Ì Looking at each priority standard for our targeted unit, what verbs can we capitalize or circle that indicate skills students will need to be proficient?

Ì What nouns or phrases can we underline that show the content and concepts to teach in a particular context?

Ì Are there conjunctions, such as and or or, that are important to decipher to help unwrap these standards?

Identify Knowledge Items After (or even while) teams annotate standards to deconstruct them, they focus collaboratively on identifying what students should know—the first part of PLC critical question 1: What do we want students to learn? (DuFour et al., 2016). Or, put another way, What is it we want students to know and be able to do? The answer is largely factual information that forms the foundation for addressing standards and leads to understanding deeper concepts for those standards that are more sophisticated. In this context, knowledge comprises facts, dates, people, places, examples, and vocabulary and terms—including concept words—although not all lessons or units necessarily include all of these. Teams can generate a list of these items. When doing so, they use nouns and noun phrases rather than line items that begin with verbs, which would reflect what we want students to do—the focus for the second half of the PLC question about skills (see the next section). As an alternative to a

standards to gain clarity about learning goals for your unit. To do so,

READING AND WRITING INSTRUCTION FOR F O U R T H - & F I F T H - G R A D E C L A S S R O O M S I N A P L C AT W O R K

Climax

llin

n isi

cti

t Ac

Resolution

Introduction

Central Conflict

Source: Glass, 2018, p. 133. Figure 1.3: Basic plot diagram.

To determine knowledge items, regardless of format, teachers refer not just to standards but to multiple resources. Along with tapping colleagues who have expertise in the targeted content of a unit, teachers can access available textbooks plus online and print resources and materials. They do not necessarily need to devise their own list or a graphic organizer. Instead, they might cite a digital resource or a page from a textbook. For example, teachers could cite the dialogue vocabulary terms as a resource for what students should know concerning dialogue tags. (See Concept Attainment, page 206, for an example.) The goal is for team members to collaboratively engage in laser-focused conversations that reveal the explicit and implied knowledge emanating from standards. As a byproduct of these conversations, veteran teachers might consider adding content to embed within instruction, and teachers new to the profession, subject matter, or grade can learn content that is important to teach. With regard to determining explicit and inferred items, consider an example from the grade 5 standard L.5.2d, “Use underlining, quotation marks, or italics to indicate titles of works” (NGA & CCSSO, 2010). When writing a research report in any content area, students collect and insert evidence (such as facts, quotations,

list, teachers can represent knowledge in other ways. For example, in a narrative unit, teachers can use a diagram of an inverted checkmark indicating plot elements as shown in figure 1.3. In science, teachers might need students to know the information on a labeled diagram of the respiratory system. In social studies, knowledge can be reflected in a map of the trade routes of early explorers. Eventually, teams will incorporate what they want students to know within curriculum design.

Chapter 1

Establish Clarity About Student Learning Expectations

or other information) to develop their topics. In doing so, they identify the titles of sources, which applies to this standard. To compile a list of knowledge items, teams might generate the following entries. Notice that these items are a combination of a fact stated in a sentence, terms students will need to know, and phrases, which all complete the sentence stem Students will know . . .

Titles of longer works are italicized if typed on an electronic device or underlined if handwritten. Titles of shorter works are enclosed in quotes Terms: italics, quotation marks Note that the first item merely restates the standard explicitly; the rest of the entries are inferred. To arrive at the latter, teams need to probe their interpretation of this standard. Besides conversing with each other, teams consult outside sources to uncover what is implied in a standard so they have a complete sense of what students will need to know to teach this standard thoroughly. For the dialogue unit, figure 1.4 illustrates how our fourth-grade team unwrapped the priority standards it chose in its PREP template to identify knowledge items.

Unwrapped Unit Priority Standards

Knowledge Items

RL.4.1 (A): Refer to details and examples in a text when explaining what the text says explicitly.

• Literal and explicit details from a text are directly stated.

RL.4.1 (B): Refer to details and examples in a text when drawing inferences from the text.

• Inferences—implied information that is not directly or explicitly stated

• Terms: Literal, explicit

• Terms: Imply, infer, inference W.4.3b (A): Use dialogue to develop experiences and events or show the responses of characters to situations.

• Purpose and function of dialogue

W.4.3b (B): Use description to develop experiences and events or show the responses of characters to situations.

• Descriptive details (precise nouns, vivid verbs, and colorful adjectives)

• Dialogue is meaningful and serves a purpose—to develop the plot or to show characters’ responses to situations.

Figure 1.4: Knowledge items for unwrapped unit priority standards—Dialogue.

continued

Conventions (or mechanics) to indicate titles of works

READING AND WRITING INSTRUCTION FOR F O U R T H - & F I F T H - G R A D E C L A S S R O O M S I N A P L C AT W O R K

Unwrapped Unit Priority Standards L.4.2a: Use correct capitalization. L.4.2b: Use commas and quotation marks to mark direct speech and quotations from a text.

• Punctuation and capitalization rules for the different types of dialogue or speaker tags

• Types of dialogue (or speaker) tags— beginning, middle, end, or no tag • Dialogue tag verbs provide description to indicate how characters speak to one another. • Term: Dialogue tag (speaker tag)

In determining the knowledge items for this example, our team considered what students need to know in the reading standard for using details and examples from dialogue to explicitly reveal what a character thinks or does, as well as for drawing inferences from exchanges between characters. Students also need to know the purpose and function of dialogue in general and differentiate meaningful from unnecessary dialogue. When planning learning experiences around these knowledge items, we intend for students to know that dialogue plays a vital role in a story, such as plot development or character responses. Lastly, students must learn about the different ways writers insert dialogue, the conventions associated with properly writing it, and a variety of verbs in dialogue tags as alternatives to said or questioned. Next, collaborative teams peruse the annotated, unwrapped standards and the new knowledge items to identify skills.

E X E RC I S E

Identify Knowledge Items Work as a collaborative team to identify knowledge items aligned to your unwrapped priority standards. When ready, add the items aligned to each unwrapped standard onto your PREP template. Your team might generate a list, reference a page from a source (for example, a page in a textbook that features a diagram, a list

L.4.3a: Choose words and phrases to convey ideas precisely.

Knowledge Items

Chapter 1

Establish Clarity About Student Learning Expectations

of vocabulary, or the beginning of an engaging story), or create a graphic organizer. Be aware that sometimes a standard is lean and does not include all that it should to design effective instruction. These knowledge items are, therefore, implied.

Ì What should students know relative to a priority standard targeted for this lesson?

Ì What explicitly stated knowledge items do we expect students to know?

Ì What might be implicit in the standard and require us to make inferences?

Determine Skills At this stage, teams review their annotation of unwrapped priority standards and their knowledge items (a list or graphic representation) to identify skills—what students actually must do. Educational consultant and author H. Lynn Erickson (2002) defines skills as: the specific competencies required for complex process performance. Skills need to be taught directly and practiced in context. For example, some of the skills required for doing the complex performance of research include “accessing information,” “identifying main ideas and details,” “note taking,” and “organizing information.” (p. 166)

Therefore, it is incumbent on teachers to plan learning experiences where they explicitly teach skills and directly assess them to ascertain students’ levels of proficiency. Equally important is the idea that skills have transfer value so that they apply to new situations. Continuing Erickson’s (2002) example, when upper elementary students learn to access information, identify main ideas, and take notes— perhaps for a research report on plate tectonics in a science unit—they will be able to apply these skills in novel ways as they conduct research for other purposes. The unwrapped, annotated priority standards serve as a guide to determine skills. Standards, like skills, begin with verbs. However, some of the verbs used in content standards are not necessarily observable but rather vaguely measurable

Use the following questions to guide this exercise.

READING AND WRITING INSTRUCTION FOR F O U R T H - & F I F T H - G R A D E C L A S S R O O M S I N A P L C AT W O R K

Figure 1.5 shows how our fourth-grade team expanded the unwrapped priority standards and knowledge from figure 1.4 (page 27) to identify the necessary skills.

Unwrapped Unit Priority Standards

Knowledge Items

Skills (Learning Targets)

RL.4.1 (A): Refer to details and examples in a text when explaining what the text says explicitly.

• Literal and explicit details from a text are directly stated.

Identify details and examples in a text to explain what it says explicitly.

RL.4.1 (B): Refer to details and examples in a text when drawing inferences from the text.

• Inferences—implied information that is not directly or explicitly stated

W.4.3b (A): Use dialogue to develop experiences and events or show the responses of characters to situations.

• Purpose and function of dialogue

W.4.3b (B): Use description to develop experiences and events or show the responses of characters to situations.

• Descriptive details (precise nouns, vivid verbs, and colorful adjectives)

• Terms: Literal, explicit Make inferences using details and examples in a text.

• Terms: Imply, infer, inference

• Dialogue is meaningful and serves a purpose— to develop the plot or to show characters’ responses to situations.

Write dialogue to develop a plot or to show characters’ responses to situations.

Write descriptive detail to develop a plot or show characters’ responses to situations.

mental verbs, such as understand and know. Instead of these verbs, teams should target using measurable action verbs like define, analyze, and compare. They must study the annotated standards and knowledge items to fashion skills that are sufficient to cover the intent of the standards as well as concrete enough to measure student aptitude. We refer to the skills that teams identify and define as learning targets, the incremental and specific skills that students must be able to do to achieve mastery of the entire learning standard. Throughout this book, you’ll notice references to standards (overall learning goals) and learning targets (the skills embedded within the standards).

Chapter 1

Establish Clarity About Student Learning Expectations

L.4.2a: Use correct capitalization. L.4.2b: Use commas and quotation marks to mark direct speech and quotations from a text.

• Punctuation and capitalization rules for the different types of dialogue or speaker tags

Use proper conventions when writing dialogue.

• Types of dialogue (or speaker) tags—beginning, middle, end, or no tag

Use words and phrases to convey ideas in a dialogue tag.

• Dialogue tag verbs provide description to indicate how characters speak to one another. • Term: Dialogue tag (speaker tag) Figure 1.5: Skills for unwrapped unit priority standards—Dialogue.

Notice that our team replaced the verbs used in the standards when making entries in the Skills column. For example, for the writing standard, we replaced use with write. We felt that write more concretely guides teachers with instruction and assessment than use. Our intent is to ask students to write dialogue for stories they generate, which is more rigorous and measurable. In some cases, like L.4.2a and L.4.2b, we maintained the verb use because it seemed to indicate that students would incorporate these skills into their writing. For L.4.3a, choose indicated to us that students select from a predetermined list or source; however, we wanted them not only to choose specific words and phrases but to actually use them in writing and in speaking. Also, before students can write dialogue, they need to be able to recognize it in published works, as reflected in the reading skills in the top two rows of the figure. Teams can apply this kind of thinking across content areas when interpreting standards. With a collective understanding of what students need to know (knowledge) and be able to do (skills), teams can design instruction that explicitly addresses standards. Therefore, they pay careful attention to the verbs so that the rigor of instruction matches the expectation for students. After unwrapping priority standards, identifying knowledge items, and determining skills, collaborative teams are primed to consider the level of intended rigor

L.4.3a: Choose words and phrases to convey ideas precisely.

READING AND WRITING INSTRUCTION FOR F O U R T H - & F I F T H - G R A D E C L A S S R O O M S I N A P L C AT W O R K

for each learning target. This will help later when teams develop literacy-focused assessments they will issue for students to demonstrate understanding.

Deter mine Skills Using your team’s unwrapped, annotated standards and knowledge items, collaborate on determining skills and enter them on your work-in-progress PREP template. Use the following questions to guide this exercise.

Ì What cognitive processes are we asking students to employ? Ì What measurable action verbs aligned to each unwrapped standard can we use to show students can apply what they learn?

Ì Do the skills have transfer value, rather than being anchored to specific content?

Assign Levels of Rigor for Learning Targets At this step, teams return to the unwrapped skills that serve as learning targets to examine their complexity. This scrutiny can lead to powerful team discussions regarding the intended rigor of the learning targets so teachers can match the challenge level in their instruction and assessments. We suggest Norman Webb’s (1997, 1999) Depth of Knowledge, a thinking taxonomy, to identify the level of rigor in your learning targets. DOK is a scale of cognitive demand composed of the following four levels. (See appendix C, page 247, for a more extensive explanation of each level.) 1. Recall: Level 1 requires rote recall of information, facts, definitions, terms,

or simple procedures. The student either knows the answer or does not. 2. Skills and concepts: Level 2 requires the engagement of mental pro-

cessing or decision making beyond recall or reproduction. Items falling into this category often have more than one step, such as organizing and comparing data.

E X E RC I S E

Chapter 1

Establish Clarity About Student Learning Expectations

3. Strategic thinking: Level 3 requires higher-level thinking than levels 1

and 2 and could include activities or contexts that have more than one possible solution, thereby requiring justification or support for the argument or process. 4. Extended thinking: Level 4 requires high cognitive demand in which

Webb’s (1997, 1999) DOK asks that teachers look beyond the verb used in the learning target, examine the context in which skills are to be performed, and determine the depth of thinking required. Although the verb choice helps indicate the level of complexity, teachers must consider the full context of the standard since the verb does not always give the complete picture of rigorous expectations. For example, teachers can devise any of the following learning targets using the verb write, but each carries a different level of expectation. Write dialogue tags to indicate a change in speakers. Write dialogue tags using precise action verbs. Write dialogue tags to indicate characters’ emotions and responses. Our fourth-grade team engaged in a fruitful discussion when determining the DOK levels for the skills within the narrative unit standard “Refer to details and examples in a text when explaining what the text says explicitly and when drawing inferences from the text” (RL.4.1; NGA & CCSSO, 2010). Consider the following. When students identify explicit details and examples from a story’s dialogue to explain what characters’ words reveal, they participate in a task involving basic comprehension. Hence, this cognitive demand falls under DOK 1. The skill necessary to determine what is implicitly stated increases the challenge for students and requires more mental processing. Therefore, making inferences using details and examples from the dialogue is associated with DOK 2. When students draw inferences across passages and write an essay explaining their interpretations using textual evidence, they address DOK 3.

students are synthesizing ideas across content areas or situations and generalizing that information to solve new problems. Many responses in this category require extensive time because they imply that students complete multiple steps, as in a multivariate investigation and analysis.

READING AND WRITING INSTRUCTION FOR F O U R T H - & F I F T H - G R A D E C L A S S R O O M S I N A P L C AT W O R K

Knowledge Items

Skills (Learning Targets and DOK Levels)

RL.4.1 (A): Refer to details and examples in a text when explaining what the text says explicitly.

• Literal and explicit details from a text are directly stated.

Identify details and examples in a text to explain what it says explicitly. (DOK 1)

RL.4.1 (B): Refer to details and examples in a text when drawing inferences from the text.

• Inferences—implied information that is not directly or explicitly stated

W.4.3b (A): Use dialogue to develop experiences and events or show the responses of characters to situations.

• Purpose and function of dialogue

W.4.3b (B): Use description to develop experiences and events or show the responses of characters to situations.

• Descriptive details (precise nouns, vivid verbs, and colorful adjectives)

Write descriptive detail to develop a plot or show characters’ responses to situations. (DOK 2)

L.4.2a: Use correct capitalization.

• Punctuation and capitalization rules for the different types of dialogue or speaker tags

Use proper conventions when writing dialogue. (DOK 1)

Unwrapped Unit Priority Standards

L.4.2b: Use commas and quotation marks to mark direct speech and quotations from a text.

• Terms: Literal, explicit Make inferences using details and examples in a text. (DOK 2)

• Terms: Imply, infer, inference

• Dialogue is meaningful and serves a purpose— to develop the plot or to show characters’ responses to situations.

Write dialogue to develop a plot or to show characters’ responses to situations. (DOK 2)

With an awareness of their learning targets and associated DOK levels, teams can make intentional and prudent decisions about the types of assessments they give and the intended levels of rigor at which to set them. See chapter 3 (page 59) for discussions about learning progressions and matching assessments to the rigor of skills. Figure 1.6 illustrates how teams add DOK levels to the PREP template, indicating the cognitive demand for each learning target.

Chapter 1

Establish Clarity About Student Learning Expectations

L.4.3a: Choose words and phrases to convey ideas precisely.

• Types of dialogue (or speaker) tags—beginning, middle, end, or no tag

Use words and phrases to convey ideas in a dialogue tag. (DOK 1)

• Term: Dialogue tag (speaker tag) Figure 1.6: DOK levels for unwrapped unit priority standards—Dialogue.

When considering learning targets’ level of expectations, educators must be careful not to change a target’s intended rigor for students with special needs, English learners, or those simply struggling with the content or skills. Teams will need to consider each of these students on a case-by-case basis—particularly for students with severe disabilities who may not be able to function independently as adults— to determine an appropriate instructional plan. You will learn more about responding to students’ data for the purposes of intervention in chapter 5 (page 117).

E X E RC I S E

Assign Levels of Rigor for Learning Targets Assign and input DOK levels to your team’s chosen learning targets onto the work-in-progress PREP template. Refer to appendix C (page 247), as well as the examples in figure 1.6, for support in assigning these levels. Use the following questions to guide this exercise.

Ì Have we considered the full context of the standards rather than relying on the verbs alone, which sometimes gives an incomplete picture of rigor?

Ì What is the complexity of each skill embedded within the full standard?

Ì Have we keenly reviewed our learning targets to be sure we are not consistently aiming too low or even too high?

• Dialogue tag verbs provide description to indicate how characters speak to one another.

READING AND WRITING INSTRUCTION FOR F O U R T H - & F I F T H - G R A D E C L A S S R O O M S I N A P L C AT W O R K

Summary

In the next chapter, we explore how the PREP work that teams engage in integrates with assessments, which consequently guides instruction. We also discuss the different types and formats of assessment along with the unique characteristics of teaching literacy.

In a PLC, the first critical question is, What is it we want our students to learn? (DuFour et al., 2016). This question incorporates several components that begin with and derive from standards that determine what we want students to know and be able to do. All the components, which are embedded in the six-step PREP process articulated in this chapter, have a role and purpose, and together, they drive effective curriculum design. The knowledge items represent foundational information that is specific to content material, the skills reflect what students are expected to do, and depth of knowledge ensures appropriate rigor. As collaborative teams work on the PREP process, they afford their students the high-quality and effective curriculum they so rightly deserve. If your team wishes to extend the process, it may also establish essential understandings and guiding questions. Appendix D (page 253) provides a detailed discussion and direction for addressing these additional components.

—Silvia Miranda Fourth-Grade Teacher and 2018 Milken Educator Award Winner; Mesa Elementary, Clovis, New Mexico

FOURTH- & FIFTH-GRADE CLASSROOMS

Readers will: u Use common assessments and rubrics to collect data about student learning for collaborative inquiry and analysis

u Identify, unwrap, and prioritize learning standards using the sixstep pre-unit protocol (PREP)

u Examine research-backed teaching strategies, like gradual release of responsibility, to differentiate and improve classroom instruction

u Develop learning progressions and build team calendars to plan literacy-focused instruction and assessment

Visit go.SolutionTree.com/literacy to download the free reproducibles in this book.

SolutionTree.com ISBN 978-1-947604-93-3 90000

9 781947 604933

MARK ONUSCHECK JEANNE SPILLER

u Understand the role the three big ideas and four critical questions of a PLC play in collaborating around reading and writing instruction